Wednesday, 29 March 2017

The search for
truth in the wake of the publication of the book, Hit and Run, has been simply
excruciating.

The authors’
initial statement was absolute. Innocent citizens had been killed in
Afghanistan as a result of an attack by New Zealand SAS forces. Equally
emphatic was the response from the Defence Force – the attacks never happened.
Then came the first modification – they never took place in either of the two
locations the authors claimed. And now, there is the authors’ admission that
while they had the village right, they had the wrong locations within it. Both
the authors and the Defence Force have been engaging in a very painstaking
dance on the head of a pin. And the public is still none the wiser as to what
did or did not happen.

Along the way, there
have been the reported misgivings at the time of the then Minister of Defence
and the apparent comments of anonymous members of the SAS. The Chief of Defence
says he has seen video footage of the incident, but at the same time says he has
read only the executive summary of the report prepared into the incident, which
he also says did not happen.

It is extremely
confusing and more than a little Gilbertian. Despite all the disclosures since
the publication of Hit and Run, the public still has no clear picture of what
did or did not take place.

Over the years,
the SAS has built up a highly deserved reputation, based on its skills,
professionalism and integrity. It is extremely well regarded. Indeed, it is no
coincidence that most recent Chiefs of Defence have come from an SAS
background. As a consequence, the reputation of the New Zealand Defence Force
has also been high, particularly in the areas of post conflict reconstruction
and peacekeeping for which it has become renowned. Our military are not the
sort of people who in the normal course of events would become involved in war
crimes or militarily improper action.

All of which
makes the seeming reluctance to hold some form of inquiry into what did or did
not happen all the more puzzling to understand, especially given the
variability of the accounts now emerging. The only thing we know for certain is
that something happened, somewhere, sometime. Beyond that, the rest is
speculation. It is reminiscent of Churchill’s comment on truth and rumour, “a lie
gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants
on.”

If the Defence
Force is confident of its account of events, what does it have to fear from an
inquiry? For their part, the book’s authors say they would welcome an inquiry,
but they have no credible option but to say that. In the context of the wider
security debate, the government has often pedalled the trite and simplistic
mantra, “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” to justify wider intrusion. Well,
now the boot is on the other foot, and the question can properly be asked in
respect of its position on an inquiry. What does it have to hide? What does it fear?

Well, maybe,
there is another aspect to this which we are all missing. What if the Defence
Force’s rebuttal is correct as far as it goes, and the SAS was not involved in
the attacks, and the video footage also confirms that, but also shows that
another force, the Americans, were more explicitly involved than has been
indicated to date? Does New Zealand want to be the source of exposing that
right now, given the unpredictability of the current administration? So is that
the real reason why there is such official coolness on the idea of an inquiry
to clear the name of the SAS?

Yes, that is just
supposition. But to paraphrase Churchill, while truth is fossicking around in
the dark looking for its trousers, rumour and speculation take hold. And in
today’s world of instant communication that quickly becomes the new unshakeable
truth. Alternative facts some might call them. Surely all the more reason why
an inquiry is needed – and pretty soon now.